No abstract

Andersson and Pearson's (1999) seminal article on workplace incivility has paved the way for nearly two decades of research focusing on rude and discourteous behavior at work. We now have a better understanding of the dynamics associated with uncivil workplace interactions including the characteristics of those who instigate and are targeted with workplace incivility, the negative consequences of incivility, the mechanisms that link incivility and negative outcomes, and the boundary conditions that affect these relationships. The present article provides a "roadmap" for workplace incivility researchers by identifying five assumptions that we propose are acting as "speedbumps" in current workplace incivility research by limiting advancements about what workplace incivility is and how it functions. We then introduce five "alternative routes" for future workplace incivility research based on these identifications. Our goal is to guide and accelerate research toward a more nuanced understanding of workplace incivility as behavior that occurs within an organizational system. (PsycINFO Database Record

No abstract

In a set of two studies, based on employees from two countries, we examined how emotion regulation moderates the relationship between psychological contract breach and (a) feelings of violation and (b) proactive behaviors (knowledge sharing and taking charge). We found that cognitive change buffers the negative effect of breach on feelings of violation and knowledge sharing (Study 1, United States). We replicate this result using taking charge as an outcome. In addition, we demonstrate that using high levels of attentional deployment as an emotion regulation strategy accentuates the negative effect of both social and generative breach on employees' taking charge (Study 2, the Netherlands). Based on our results, we call for additional research on how emotion regulation modifies the relationship between psychological contract breach and work outcomes.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize, understand, and measure positive and negative aspects of supervisor developmental feedback (SDF) and investigate their relationships with task performance. Design/methodology/approach – In Study 1, common themes in SDF were identified and a set of SDF items were developed to capture the positive and negative SDF domain. Study 2 entailed the administration of the items to respondents to examine the dimensionality of the items through exploratory factor analysis. In Study 3, using confirmatory factor analysis we further examined the extent to which positive and negative developmental feedback (PSDF and NSDF) were conceptually distinct from each other and different from an existing general measure of supervisor feedback. Findings – Study 1 and Study 2 yielded evidence that positive and negative SDF are distinct yet related constructs. Positive SDF predicted employee task performance. The positive SDF by negative SDF interaction predicted task performance. Research limitations/implications – The authors provide criterion-related validity evidence by examining the predictive validity of positive and negative SDF on subordinate task performance (reported by supervisors). Future research should examine the role of positive and negative SDF in predicting job performance in other samples and cultural contexts and for other outcomes, including organizational citizenship. Originality/value – This research refines the SDF domain by identifying positive and negative domains of the SDF construct. The authors propose and test the joint influence of positive and negative SDF. The novel findings point to the importance of supervisors providing both positive and negative feedback to enhance performance.